[Echognome]

Scoring: XIMP

(2♠)* - P - (P) - 4♦**
(P) - ?

---

*Weak 2
**Leaping Michael's ♦ and ♥

What now?

[mr1303]

Uggh, horrible hand. 5D, and hope partner doesn't bid 6. Hopefully this is the least encouraging bid I can make.

[MickyB]

I'm confused...

4♦ is forcing
I am 0-3 in my partner's suits
If partner bids 6♦ over 5♦, I hope he doesn't make an overtrick

[Gerben42]

5♦ looks enough.

[mr1303]

4D is forcing? What am I meant to do with:

xxxx
xx
xx
xxxxx

?

[cherdano]

mr1303, on Jan 27 2006, 04:28 PM, said:

4D is forcing? What am I meant to do with:

xxxx
xx
xx
xxxxx

?

For me it's forcing by agreement. But with the given hand, wouldn't you prefer 4♥ over 4♦ anyway? If it goes down, the score is the same, but if partner happens to have a monster and make it...or go down one, at least opps were sweating...

[Al_U_Card]

Interesting agreement. Pard is expecting a random 7 count and you can provide him with a C trick and some H ruffs (They should lead trumps on this "preference" auction. If they do, you may well have trouble making 4...) I would pass and hope for a plus given the lack of S support by RHO.

[FrancesHinden]

I also think it's forcing.
I raise to five and hope it doesn't make an overtrick.

[luis]

5♦ no other choice.

[mikeh]

5♦. Passing a forcing bid is a bad idea at the best of times, and I have no idea why anyone thinks we are in trouble here. Partner is, literally, unlimited. It is unlikely but possible that he will raise 5♦ to 6.

While I do not expect A AKxxxx AKQxxx void, neither do I rule it out. When partner makes an unlimited forcing bid, his hand is literally unlimited.

If he can't make 5♦ opposite the hand I hold, then he probably stretched to bid 4♦.

[FrancesHinden]

I though the original problem was whether we should be making a slam try here!
After all,
-
KQJxx
AKxxxx
Kx

only needs one of the minors breaking 2-2.

Our spade length is such that partner probably has a singleton, however, which puts me off. Give me a fourth diamond, and things are - of course - totally different (it then becomes quite close to a slam force).

[Al_U_Card]

Even tho I have it on my cc and have had it employed against me a few times, I have never used it nor had partner use it. Is the general agreement that it is forcing? (To 4 of the major? or what?)

[pclayton]

Leaping Michaels can be played as 'moderate': x, AQxxx, AKJxx, xx or 'strong': ---AKJTx, AQJxxx, xx.

There's been some articles that advocate the former, but I think the more prevalent use is to play it as a strong hand and forcing to 4 of the major.

With the subject hand I bid 5♦ and hope it fetches. With no spade raise, my club A is probably hitting a void, and theres a lot of work to get to 11 tricks.

[mikeh]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 27 2006, 11:39 AM, said:

Even tho I have it on my cc and have had it employed against me a few times, I have never used it nor had partner use it.  Is the general agreement that it is forcing? (To 4 of the major? or what?)

I have used it a number of times in several partnerships. In all cases we have used it as forcing: it promises an expectation of game opposite an reasonable poor hand opposite: so it is a strong bid, forcing to game in one of the suits. I have never seen it discussed as 'moderate' and my view would be that such a style is unplayable in the long run. Firstly, you will generate too many minuses, and secondly, how do you handle the big hands? Doubling then bidding is fine with big 3-suited or one-suited hands but very poor for powerful 2-suiters, since your second suit gets lost. Furthermore, when in direct seat, you have to cater to the possibility that LHO will raise opener at the 4-level, thus completely destroying your ability to show this awkard yet slam-potential hand.

And you cannot play Leaping Michaels as 'both ways', for obvious reasons.

So with the moderate hand, make a simple major suit overcall, which is hardly a sign of weakness

[Blofeld]

5♦ seems practical.

[Echognome]

Perhaps it would have been more interesting to ask whether to leaping michael's on partner's (my) hand.

♠A
♥KT743
♦AK983
♣K7

I actually chose double (I wasn't sure we were playing leaping michael's and didn't want to risk a total disaster.)

Partner bid 2NT (lebensohl) and I reluctantly complied with 3♣ making +170 when clubs split 2-2.

At all the other tables, NS played in either 5♣ or 3NT after East initially passed. West then opened 1♥ and the North hands had a different problem. Most chose 1NT to end in 3NT. As you can see, clubs is a much better strain than NT. 5♦ is also making as diamonds are 3-2.

[Blofeld]

Over a double I would have bid 3♣ with your partner's hand.

[joshs]

Echognome, on Jan 27 2006, 12:21 PM, said:

Perhaps it would have been more interesting to ask whether to leaping michael's on partner's (my) hand.

♠A
♥KT743
♦AK983
♣K7

I actually chose double (I wasn't sure we were playing leaping michael's and didn't want to risk a total disaster.)

Partner bid 2NT (lebensohl) and I reluctantly complied with 3♣ making +170 when clubs split 2-2.

At all the other tables, NS played in either 5♣ or 3NT after East initially passed. West then opened 1♥ and the North hands had a different problem. Most chose 1NT to end in 3NT. As you can see, clubs is a much better strain than NT. 5♦ is also making as diamonds are 3-2.

Hmm. Over 4D I would bid 5D and prey we are not missing a slam (in one of the minors), but there will be a lot of handling on this hand.

With your actual hand I would have xed then bid 3H to show a strong flexible hand (I think your suit quality is wrong for 4D). Partner would certainly insist on at least 5C on that sequence. Actually, with the 7 club hand I would bid 5C over the x not 2N.

[FrancesHinden]

Echognome, on Jan 27 2006, 06:21 PM, said:

Perhaps it would have been more interesting to ask whether to leaping michael's on partner's (my) hand.

♠A
♥KT743
♦AK983
♣K7

I actually chose double (I wasn't sure we were playing leaping michael's and didn't want to risk a total disaster.)

Partner bid 2NT (lebensohl) and I reluctantly complied with 3♣ making +170 when clubs split 2-2.

Your partner spent too long counting his points ("only 6") and not enough time looking at his hand. He has closer to a game force after a take-out double than to a 3C sign-off.

[Free]

5♦, which is no slam interest at all...